Worldly Ethics and Transcendental Liberation: Yinguang’s “Eight-Verse Guiding Principles” in the Pure Land Path

Abstract

This article reinterprets Yinguang’s (1861–1940) “Eight-Verse Guiding Principles” as a program that integrates worldly ethics with supramundane liberation in modern Chinese Buddhism. On the ethical level, Yinguang established “fulfilling one’s duties and preserving sincerity” as the fundamental code, insisting that moral responsibility and the guarding of right mindfulness revealed the innate luminosity of the mind. Building on this, the article looks at “eliminating selfish desires and manifesting illustrious virtue” (gewu zhizhi 格物致知) as a way to connect ontology to practice, highlighting the significance of “refraining from all evils and cultivating all virtues.” The practitioner made progress toward the ultimate objective of “purifying the mind” by following these steps. On the liberation level, the bodhi-mind functions as vow-power oriented toward Buddhahood for self and others. This dual aspiration functioned as the inner motivation for rebirth in the Pure Land and the attainment of Buddhahood. The triad of “faith, vows, and practice” furnishes an accessible soteriological pathway for ordinary beings who rely on Amitābha’s vow-power to achieve rebirth with karmic burdens. Methodologically, the study combines close reading of primary writings with modern theories of religious ethics and lived religion to show how name recitation (chiming nianfo 持名念佛) concentrates the mind and conduces to the samādhi of recitation, where “the whole mind is Buddha, and the whole Buddha is mind.” Framed within the broader dynamics of Republican-era moral reform and global Pure Land transmission, the article argues that Yinguang’s eight-verse guiding principles embodied the ideal of “reaching Buddhahood by way of the human path,” providing a historically grounded yet contemporary salient model for understanding Chinese religious culture today.

1. Introduction

Modern scholarship increasingly seeks to interpret Chinese religious cultures through contemporary theoretical lenses while attending to their social relevance. A key figure in this endeavor is Yinguang (1861–1940), whose writings influenced devotional practice, moral discourse, and the national recognition of Pure Land philosophy during the Republican era.

Over the past ten years, scholarship has renewed attention to Pure Land practice and to Yinguang’s standing within Republican-era Chinese society. Yinguang emerged as one of the most influential Buddhist figures in the early twentieth century not solely because of his personal spiritual practice but through his embedding in Republican-era socioeconomic and political conditions and in newly developed media, transportation, and communication systems (Kiely 2017, p. 31). Buddhist print culture in the late Qing and Republican eras furnished crucial channels for diffusion (R. Lai 2013, p. 12); journals and letter networks replicated the Wenchao (《文鈔》) for beginners and lay publics. Scholars have shown how Yinguang’s charismatic authority was socially produced and maintained through print culture, public letters, and wartime piety, establishing him as a modern Pure Land patriarch (Zu 2023).

Infrastructural change also reshaped the social geography of religion: the expansion of railways, steamships, telegraphy, and mechanized printing altered the structural conditions of Buddhist enterprises (Kiely 2017, p. 34). Urban lay elites invested financial and relational capital in religious education, text distribution, and charitable relief (Kiely 2017, pp. 40–41). War and displacement heightened demand for practicable, everyday forms of cultivation. Yinguang’s Pure Land program met this need at the level of household ethics and communal recitation (Zu 2023; Jones 2021).

Within this broader landscape, many lay Buddhists were “figuring out how to live meaningful Buddhist lives relevant to an emerging modern China,” where the quest for ethical values, ritual practice, and transcendence amid turbulence often led to Buddhism (Kiely 2016, p. 10). As Kiely observes, Yinguang’s focus on nianfo together with an inclusive blending of Confucian, Daoist, and local practices enhanced his public appeal and drew hundreds of thousands of supporters, consolidating his status as a spiritual leader (Kiely 2016, p. 221).

Recent studies have further discussed the understanding of this issue. Jones reframes Pure Land as a “tradition of practice,” correcting older school-based taxonomies and underscoring the ethical texture of devotion (Jones 2021). In order to shed light on the interpretive pressures that shaped the expression of Pure Land practice, Zamorski (2023) looks at how Western conceptual distinctions changed Republican-era conceptions of religion and philosophy. Brose (2025) further consolidates the field by providing updated translations and contextual essays on eminent modern Chinese masters, including dedicated materials on Yinguang for teaching and citation.

Despite these advances, two philosophical gaps remain. First, the internal architecture of Yinguang’s “Eight-Verse Guiding Principles” has rarely been reconstructed as a single, staged curriculum that conceptually binds deontic duties and sincerity to soteriological ends. Existing studies list components without explaining their necessary relations. Second, the relationship between sincerity and vow-power, which is realized in the recitation-samādhi and mediated by the triad of faith, vows, and practice, has been asserted but not argued for from Yinguang’s own categories.

Addressing these gaps, this paper offers a categorical reconstruction of the eight verses as a cohesive link between supramundane liberation and ethical cultivation: it explicates how ethical sincerity functions as the enabling condition for other-power reliance, and how disciplined name recitation gathers the mind toward liberation. In doing so, it interprets historical traditions through modern academic perspectives while demonstrating their concrete significance for contemporary ethical discourse and social practice.

Yinguang, a pivotal figure in modern Chinese Buddhism, articulated the “Eight-Verse Guiding Principles” as a program that combines moral development in daily life with a distinct soteriological path toward transcendental liberation. This article argues that Yinguang’s synthesis is anchored in sincerity, duty, and disciplined practice. It culminates in the bodhi-mind and the triad of faith, vows, and practice, offering a paradigmatic case of how classical resources were reread to address modern concerns. By combining close textual analysis with intellectual and social history, the study shows how this framework shaped everyday moral dispositions, ritual practice, and communal identity, and why it continues to bear modern value for Chinese society and for cross-cultural understanding of Chinese Buddhism.

As the thirteenth patriarch of the Pure Land School, Yinguang dedicated his entire life to the teachings and practice of Pure Land Buddhism. His writings are included in the Collected Writings of Master Yinguang (Yinguang Fashi Wenchao《印光法師文鈔》), which was praised as a “miniature of Buddhist canon” by Venerable Chuanyin1. In his letters and instructions to disciples and lay followers, Yinguang frequently highlighted what he called the “Eight-Verse Guiding Principles”: “Fulfill one’s duties in ethics and human relations; guard against evil thoughts while preserving sincerity; refrain from all evils; cultivate all virtues; truly aspire to transcend the cycle of life and death; resolve to attain Bodhicitta; establish profound faith and earnest vows; and hold fast to the Buddha’s name.” (Yinguang 2010w, p. 1132). These eight lines embody both the ethical responsibilities of worldly life and the sequential stages of supramundane cultivation. Taken together, they form the core structure of Yinguang’s thought.

Yinguang’s key principles of spiritual cultivation track closely with those of Ouyi Zhixu (蕅益智旭, 1599–1655)2. He repeatedly recommended Ouyi’s Jingtu Shiyao (《淨土十要》, Ten Essentials of Pure Land) as a core compendium for Pure Land practitioners: “With diamond-like discernment, Ouyi selected those works most attuned to the ultimate truth and to the needs of practitioners from all works expounding the Pure Land teachings, and nothing further could be added. The first item, the Essential Explanation of the Amitābha Sūtra (《彌陀要解》), is his own commentary: It is rich in expression yet easy to grasp, doctrinally consummate and direct. Centered wholly on mind nature, it embodies a teaching of unsurpassed excellence and worth constant study.”3 (Yinguang 2010h, p. 202). Yinguang also esteemed Chan Master Chewu (徹悟禪師) (Y. Lai 2010, p. 238), calling the Chewu yulu (《徹悟語錄》, Recorded Sayings of Master Chewu)4 “truly the most essential guidance in the Pure Land tradition” (Yinguang 2010r, p. 250). Chewu’s sixteen-character syllabus—“truly for the sake of birth-and-death; arouse the bodhi-mind; with deep faith and vows; hold the Buddha’s name (真為生死，發菩提心；以深信願，持佛名號)”5—left a marked imprint on Yinguang’s own articulation of Pure Land practice.

Yinguang laid out the Eight Guiding Principles as a two-part program. The first four principles bring Buddhism into the grain of everyday life. They ask practitioners to perfect their personality, and on that ground, to let the innate pure mind show itself, so that one becomes a virtuous person in the mundane world. The latter four principles (adopted from Chewu’s sixteen-character syllabus) set the path toward supramundane release. Within the rhythm of family and social life, he reframed Buddhism’s ultimate goal, which is to eliminate delusion, return to the original pure mind, and aspire to rebirth in the Sukhāvatī. Yinguang articulated an integrative framework, which his followers received as a coherent solution to ethical and soteriological concerns in the Republican period, thereby fulfilling the vision of “reaching Buddhahood through the perfection of human virtues (ji rendao da fodao, 即人道達佛道).”

2. Worldly Ethics: Cultivating the Mind and Perfecting Character

2.1. Fulfilling Duties and Guarding Sincerity: Ethical Praxis of Confucian–Buddhist Integration

Yinguang discussed a framework on the ontological level that was called the “ever-abiding true mind” (changzhu zhenxin 常住真心). He wrote: “The essence of the mind is originally quiescent; when obscured by afflictions and karmic delusion, it appears turbid. The nature of the delusion is ultimately ungrounded; when illumined by awareness, only the true permanence remains.”6 (Yinguang 2010o, p. 1173). This statement made it clear that the true mind is a pure essence that transcends the cycles of birth and death. It is peaceful and untarnished by defilement. However, because sentient beings are covered over by afflictions and ignorance (fanhuo 煩惑), this quiescent mind takes on the appearance of turbidity and pollution. Importantly, Yinguang insists that such defilement does not belong to the true essence of mind itself. Yinguang’s claim that defilement is not inherent in the mind’s true essence is not a personal innovation but a restatement within a long Chinese synthesis of Yogācāra and Tathāgatagarbha discourse. In the Chinese canon, this position is classically framed by the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna (Dacheng qixin lun 大乘起信論) “one mind, two aspects” and the Tathāgatagarbha literature. Yinguang himself mentioned that his writings merely popularize the essentials of “the Buddha-patriarchs’ scriptures and treatises,” rather than his own creation (Yinguang 2010k, p. 85). Read in that light, his language about a “constant, abiding true mind” aligns with mainstream Chinese mind-nature theory, which was widely circulated in late imperial and modern Chinese Buddhist discourse. By analyzing the dialectic between “quiescence” and “emptiness,” and between “afflictions” and “illumination,” he unifies the static essence of the mind with its dynamic manifestations under the framework of the ever-abiding true mind.

Based on this foundation, Yinguang turned to concrete human relationships. He remarked: “Sincerity (cheng 誠) and luminous virtue (mingde 明德) both refer to the essence of one’s own mind. Though the names differ, the substance is one.” (Yinguang 2010l, p. 823) Here, he borrows the Confucian vocabulary of cheng and mingde (Li 1999, p. 1446), yet grounds both in a Buddhist theory. For him, sincerity and luminous virtue alike point to the innate reality of the self-mind. If the mind is already sincere and luminous, then the task of practice is to remove what obscures it and return to its original state.

Yinguang made this point explicit in the guidelines “fulfill one’s duties in ethics and human relations” (dunlun jinfen 敦倫盡分) and “eliminate distractions while preserving sincerity” (xianxie cuncheng 閒邪存誠). The first calls for honoring human relationships and performing one’s proper roles. For example, “a father’s kindness and a son’s filiality, an elder brother’s care and a younger brother’s respect.” So that the mind’s vastness and responsibility take shape in daily life. The second urges vigilance against corrupting thoughts and the guarding of the mind’s purity through right mindfulness. These practices, which appear to be rules for everyday conduct, are designed to awaken the mind’s innate sincerity and luminosity. The practitioner gradually uncovers and realizes the ever-present essence of the sincere and luminous mind through outward moral action combined with inward attentiveness. When promoting Pure Land practice, Yinguang centers faith, vows, and name recitation, regarding ethical conduct and daily disciplines as the primary means for safeguarding faith and cultivating wholesome roots. From the standpoint of mind-nature, the manifestation of “sincerity” must be sustained by practices of body and mind.

Yinguang’s use of Confucian terms served, first of all, as a historical corrective to Song–Ming Neo-Confucianism. In his view, the Cheng–Zhu lineage, while borrowing from Buddhism, rejected karmic causation and rebirth for the sake of sectarian boundary-keeping, thereby weakening the ethical foundations of society (Yinguang 2010m, p. 550). He therefore urged a return to the early Confucius and Mencius canon, which emphasized embodied self-cultivation (Yinguang 2010x, p. 971). This line of thought was shaped by Ouyi Zhixu: Four Books with Ouyi’s Commentary reads the Confucian classics through Buddhist doctrine to correct Neo-Confucian biases, a project that Yinguang praised as revealing the shared core “mind-teaching” of Confucianism and Buddhism (Yinguang 2010y, p. 827).

Second, Yinguang’s use of Confucian terms answered the pressures of the Republican era. As Kiely notes, elites educated in Western and new schools often turned against both Confucian culture and “religion,” feeding a secularizing mood; Buddhist discourse thus had to become publicly intelligible (Kiely 2016, p. 6). While tracing the historical developments, Lai points out that “Buddhism, as an integral element of Chinese culture, needed to be revitalized alongside the nation to counter the challenge of Christianity represented by the numerous foreign powers in China.” (R. Lai 2013, p. 194). Sheng Yen later summarized Yinguang’s approach as “using Confucianism for Buddhist purposes,” that is, conveying Buddhist ideas through familiar Confucian ethical frames (Sheng Yen 2020b, p. 68). Yinshun pushes the point further: Yinguang’s call to “fulfill one’s duties” makes worldly ethical responsibility the basis for seeking rebirth in the Pure Land, linking Pure Land faith and vows to modern social life rather than retreating from it (Yinshun 2009b, p. 12).

Yinguang’s emphasis on “fulfilling one’s duties” and “preserving sincerity” circulated widely in his public letters, which functioned as a moral technology that shaped religious practices for lay devotees. Sincerity, according to McGuire, can only be attained through embodied daily routines like family responsibilities, morning lessons, and household discipline (McGuire 2008, p. 100). Zu goes on to say that Yinguang’s counsel created a standard of moral behavior for people during the turbulent war (Zu 2023). As a result, these routines are actually a type of moral discipline that is incorporated into daily life and is represented in a variety of activities that take place in families, among relatives, and in communities. This is what is known as a “living” ethical practice.

In the family ethics, Yinguang advocated filial piety, brotherly love, and trustworthiness as the foundation, and abstaining from excessive drinking, gambling, and other activities that easily lead to defilements. During festivals, weddings, and funerals, people were encouraged to mainly consume vegetarian food, refrain from killing, and avoid extravagance. For personal cultivation, the daily routine centered on reciting the Buddha’s name morning and evening, along with chanting.

They were also taught methods of reciting the Buddha’s name that involve “gathering the ears to listen attentively,” the “ten moments of mindfulness” method, and the “mindfulness of breathing” method (Chen 1999, p. 3), so that the recitation of the Buddha’s name would be continuous and the mind would not be scattered. Meanwhile, he encouraged self-reflection using a ledger of merits and demerits to examine one’s mind, and guided one’s correct mindfulness with a vow text. Within the communal practice, he urged people to join Lotus Societies for group recitation, to circulate scriptures, and to avoid killing while releasing life.

In this way, “fulfilling one’s duties” is not an empty form. It settles the mind by placing it within proper ties. And “preserving sincerity” is not a vague talk about mind-nature. It is a clear routine, including a daily schedule, precepts, and ways to counter bad habits, so that sincerity and bright virtue can be seen in action. In short, the principle is clear because the work is done.

2.2. Eradicating Selfish Desires, Manifesting Luminous Virtue

Yinguang held a central place of gewu zhizhi (格物致知, “investigating things to extend knowledge”) in his theory. It functioned as a crucial link between abstract ontology and the concrete practice. He inherited the Confucian tradition of self-cultivation, which emphasized disciplined effort and gradual refinement; furthermore, he reinterpreted this tradition through a Buddhist lens, included it in the doctrine of mind-nature, and constructed a path of practice that aimed at “eliminating selfish desires and manifesting illustrious virtue.” He wrote: “Through the elimination of selfish desires, knowledge is perfected; through the perfection of knowledge, the illustrious virtue is fully illumined.”7 (Yinguang 2010l, p. 823). In this formulation, gewu marks the starting point, zhizhi describes the unfolding process, and the realization of luminous virtue designates the ultimate state in which the mind’s original essence becomes fully revealed.

The central thrust of Yinguang’s interpretation of gewu zhizhi is that luminous virtue is always present as an inherent quality of mind, yet it remains obscured by selfish desires. Every person, regardless of learning or status, has the capacity to restore this virtue. By engaging in honest self-examination (gewu), by removing distortions and partialities (zhizhi), and by patiently refining both thought and action, one can ultimately recover luminous virtue as the natural state of the ever-abiding true mind. In this way, Yinguang integrates the Confucian discourse of sincerity and luminosity (chengming 誠明) with the Buddhist doctrine of mind-nature, articulating a path in which moral responsibility, spiritual discipline, and metaphysical realization converge.

The discussion of “eliminating selfish desires” played a significant role in the development of the daily devotional practices. According to Zu’s study, Yinguang’s letters repeatedly linked selfish desires with societal disorder. He advised the populace to give up excessive drinking, gambling, meat-eating, and violence (Zu 2023). “Manifesting virtue” was not just inner purity; it showed up as rules people lived by. Rather than erect a separate Confucian ethic, Yinguang recasts mind-nature doctrine as practicable cures.

Furthermore, Yinguang established the standard for upholding precepts by emphasizing “discussing good and evil from the mind ground.” If the mind ground is pure, then all precepts are perfectly observed. If the mind ground is defiled, then even if the external phenomena conform, it is ultimately not pure discipline.

Yinguang centered his interpretation of practice on the notion of “the non-duality of inner and outer.” He stated: “Evil or good deeds must be discussed based on the mind-nature, and they cannot be limited to externally performed deeds. If one does not give rise to evil within the mind-nature, then the whole of it is good.”8 (Yinguang 2010g, p. 481). This remark highlighted that the essence of good or evil did not rest upon outward behavior alone but depended fundamentally on the movements of thoughts within the mind. When the heart gave rise to no evil intention, even in the absence of specific virtuous deeds, its original state could already be described as “wholly good.”

The discussion of good and evil based on the level of the mind-nature revealed the philosophical essence of practice, and the further statement offers a concrete direction of actual cultivation. “Whenever a thought arises, it must not contain even a single trace of evil; only then can all precepts be perfectly upheld. If one merely attends to external forms, one may not transgress even a single precept. However, such a person cannot truly be called one who keeps pure precepts, because in the mind, there still remains the condition of breaking them.”9 (Yinguang 2010e, p. 70). Here, Yinguang clearly distinguished between keeping the precepts on the level of outward form and keeping the precepts on the level of the mind-nature. The former sought only formal compliance, “not breaking a single precept,” while the inner seeds of greed, anger, and delusion remained in place, which he criticized as “defiled precepts.” By contrast, the latter took the principle that “with each arising thought, allow no unwholesome thought to arise.” By attending closely to every stir of mind and cleansing it, practitioners cut the evil at its source and arrived at “perfect observance of all precepts.”

With this sharp contrast, Yinguang exposed the limitations of rule-keeping as merely formal and stressed the significance of “cultivating the mind” in order to observe the precepts. Proper discipline was not found in outward compliance but rather in the internal process of enlightenment and mental transformation. As a result, his instruction both provided an ontological foundation for practice and indicated a practical route for purifying action and thought.

2.3. Refrain from All Evil, Cultivate All Good: Take the Precepts as the Vessel and Purify the Mind

In the Buddhist tradition, the verse “to refrain from all evils, to cultivate all wholesome deeds, and to purify one’s mind” is known as the universal precept of the Seven Buddhas and has long been regarded as a fundamental guideline of practice. In the Ekottarāgama Sūtra (Zengyi ahan jing 增壹阿含經)10, Venerable Kāśyapa once asked: “From what kind of gāthā are the Thirty-seven Aids to Enlightenment and all dharmas produced?” Ananda answered by pointing directly to this formula: “Refraining from all evils is the basis of all dharmas. From this foundation, all wholesome dharmas arise, and through the arising of wholesome dharmas the mind becomes pure.” In this exchange, the core teachings such as the Thirty-seven Aids to Enlightenment are traced back to this concise injunction. The verse outlines a complete path of cultivation: beginning with ethical regulation in outward conduct (refraining from evil, cultivating good) and culminating in the purification of the inner mind (self-purification). Precisely because it transcends specific doctrinal schools and points directly to the essence of mind-cultivation, it came to be called the “common precept of the Seven Buddhas.”

The injunction emphasized the fundamental role that “refraining from all evils” played in Buddhist discipline. Stopping evil deeds was more than just a moral discipline issue; it laid the foundation for the development of wholesome dharmas. The mind started to naturally lean toward purity once destructive behaviors ceased, as it was no longer distracted by anger, greed, or delusion. According to Yinguang’s interpretation, this instance of mental purity signaled a significant shift in the cultivation process. The Ekottarāgama states: “Kāśyapa, when the precepts are pure, is not the mind thereby purified? When the mind is purified, it is no longer inverted; when it is no longer inverted, deluded thoughts are extinguished, and thus the fruits of the Thirty-seven Aids to Enlightenment are accomplished.” Here we see a graded logic: pure moral conduct leads to mental purity; mental purity eliminates inversion and delusion; the elimination of delusion enables the fulfillment of wisdom and liberation. The passage interweaves precepts, mind, wisdom, and fruition into a single, ascending sequence. In this way, it highlights the pivotal role of “purifying the mind” as the link that joins ethical practice with liberative insight, integrating the three trainings of morality, concentration, and wisdom (sīla, samādhi, prajñā) as well as the six pāramitās into a coherent framework.

What deserves closer attention is Yinguang’s more thorough elaboration of this formula. Whereas the early scriptures typically interpreted “all evils” as the threefold wrongdoings of body, speech, and mind, Yinguang pressed the meaning further. He explained: “This character ‘evil’ embraces body, speech, and mind. Even a bodhisattva on the penultimate stage of equal enlightenment (dengjue 等覺), who still has one subtle grade of ignorance unbroken and whose three perfections remain incomplete—this too counts as evil.”11 (Yinguang 2010a, p. 1721). In other words, “evil” for Yinguang is not limited to coarse immoral acts but extends to the most subtle residues of ignorance within even the highest bodhisattva stage. Through this reinterpretation, the injunction “refrain from all evils” is elevated from a code of external behavior to a principle of thorough purification of the very mind-nature. It demands the removal of even the faintest traces of defilement. The more one purifies obscurations, the more powerful one’s practice becomes, and the reception of aid from others is completely unobstructed, until the mind itself is without blemish or attachment.

This “mind-ground observance of precepts” is not a new invention, but rather prepares a pure receptacle for the continuous recitation of the Buddha’s name. The Pure Land Dharma gate requires a combination of self-power and other-power to achieve mutual intercourse and response; it is definitely not purely reliant on other-power. Worldly good deeds are the provisions of pure karma for rebirth in the Pure Land (Chen 1999, p. 121). If one’s observance of precepts is pure, then the mind is easily purified; if the mind is pure and not inverted, then one can, in every thought-moment, not lose the Buddha’s name. When thought-moments continue without interruption, there is mutual intercourse and response, and the provisions are achieved.

Within the shared intellectual framework of Confucianism and Buddhism, the law of cause and effect consistently served as a fundamental principle guiding both cultivation and the practice of life. Yinguang used the passage from the Book of Documents (Shangshu 尚書) chapter “The Counsels of the Great Yu” (Dayu mo 大禹謨) that reads “In following the Way there is blessing; in opposing it there is misfortune” (Huidi ji, congni xiong 惠迪吉,從逆兇)12. Precisely by utilizing the Confucian classics as a bridge, we can return to the insight of the Buddha-dharma’s “explanation of causes from the mind.” “Huidi” meant to act in accord with the great Way, while “congni” indicated acting against it: following the Way led to good fortune, while opposing it led to disaster.

Yinguang deepened the meaning of causality through the Buddhist theory based on this foundation. He explained: “To fear causes means to employ Śīla, Samādhi, and Prajñā to subdue the mind, so that thoughts of greed, anger, and delusion find no opportunity to arise. When one’s mind and intentions, one’s words and deeds, are all in harmony with the six pāramitās and the myriad practices that benefit others, then as one’s virtuous efforts accumulate in purity, blessings and wisdom become complete. At that point, one directly realizes the nature of one’s own mind and fulfills the path to Buddhahood.”13 (Yinguang 2010p, p. 1291). In this way, he elevated the Confucian idea of external behavioral causality—acting in accord or against the Way—into the Buddhist principle of inner causality, in which the environments arise based on the mind.

Yinguang also stressed a critical limitation for sentient beings who did not realize that causes brought forth results. A true understanding of causality required tracing it back to the very origin of thought in the mind; if the mind were governed by greed, anger, and delusion, the resulting actions would inevitably be evil; if Śīla, Samādhi, and Prajñā guided the mind instead, the resulting actions would naturally be wholesome. Ordinary people often only paid attention to the external forms of behavior, such as acts of killing, stealing, or sexual misconduct, overlooking the deeper roots of these behaviors—the “moment-to-moment thoughts of greed, anger, and delusion.” This perspective of “tracing causes to the mind” thus brought together the Confucian notion of “cause and effect retribution” as an empirical moral insight with the Buddhist teaching as an ontological wisdom. Both traditions converged on a shared thesis: the principle of cause and effect formed the very foundation of the sacred teachings of Confucianism and Buddhism alike.

In conclusion, Yinguang oriented the practice toward “purifying the mind and perfecting character.” On this basis, he integrated Buddhist doctrine with human ethics. The core of his thought may be summarized under two interrelated dimensions.

First, on the practical level, by practicing “fulfilling one’s duties and preserving sincerity,” one safeguarded the mind’s purity through ethical action; by employing the discipline of gewu zhizhi, one eliminated selfish desire and revealed luminous virtue. From the perspective of “discerning good and evil on the level of the ground of the mind,” he distinguished between “keeping the precepts in outward form” and “keeping the precepts on the mind-nature.” In this way, he sought to lead practitioners beyond mere formal compliance to the ultimate realization of the injunction “refrain from all evils, cultivate all good deeds, and purify the mind.”

Second, on the level of intellectual integration, Yinguang employed the Buddhist theory of mind and nature to deepen classical Confucian ideas such as sincerity and luminous virtue and the principle of causality. He simultaneously inherited the traditional guideline of practice found in the “universal precept of the Seven Buddhas” and went beyond conventional understandings of “evil.” By extending “evil” to include even the most subtle ignorance left unbroken at the level of advanced bodhisattvas, he argued that practice demanded the eradication of even the finest traces of defilement until the mind was wholly free from attachment and impurity.

Taken together, the two dimensions demonstrate how Yinguang’s thought laid out a comprehensive path of cultivation that was simultaneously ontological, practical, and integrative. His vision merged Confucian ethical sensibilities with Buddhist metaphysics and moral psychology to articulate a rigorous program that brought character perfection and mental purification into a single, cohesive system.

3. Supramundane Liberation: The Core Path of Dedication to the Pure Land

A sound worldly ethic is the ground of transcendence. As both Sheng Yen and Yinshun stress, whether the Confucian call to “fulfill one’s duties” or the Buddhist arousal of the bodhi-mind, each rests on fulfilling human responsibilities (Sheng Yen 2020a, p. 176; Yinshun 2009b). By fulfilling one’s human duties in this world, one can lay a genuine basis for liberation and aspire to rebirth in the Pure Land of the highest grade. As Jones mentioned: “While Amitābha’s other-power is necessary for gaining rebirth, one’s own ethical practice, undergirded by the formal reception of precepts, is essential for generating one’s ability to call upon the Buddha’s power for help in the first place” (Jones 2019, p. 97). In the Chinese Mahāyāna spirit, rebirth in the West is not the terminus; the final aim is Buddhahood for the sake of all beings.

Yinguang articulated his eightfold guideline for practice as a program rich in meaning and carefully structured in stages. The first four lines focused on the field of worldly ethics, emphasizing the development of character and the control of moral behavior. In contrast, the last four lines—“earnestly confront the problem of birth and death; arouse the bodhi-mind; establish deep faith and vows; and recite the Buddha’s name”—shifted the focus toward supramundane aspiration, pointed to the path of liberation that surpasses the cycle of birth and death.

The following analysis will concentrate on these latter four lines, examining their implications for supramundane liberation. The discussion proceeds in three parts: first, the orientation toward confronting the reality of birth and death, and the arousal of the bodhi-mind; second, the establishment of faith and vows; and third, the culminating practice of name recitation as the direct means of returning to one’s own nature and attaining rebirth in Amitābha’s Pure Land.

3.1. Arousing the Bodhi-Mind: The Central Principle of Benefiting Oneself and Others

First, the bodhi-mind was understood as the mind that seeks both self-awakening and the liberation of others. Its content encompassed the dual vow of “seeking Buddhahood and alleviating the suffering of all beings.” The full expression of bodhi-mind was “Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi,” translated into Chinese as “unsurpassed complete and perfect enlightenment”14 (wushang zhengdeng zhengjue 無上正等正覺). It referred to the vow to attain ultimate awakening for the sake of benefiting all sentient beings.

Tanluan (曇鸞, 476–542), in his commentary on Vasubandhu’s Treatise on Rebirth in the Pure Land (Wangsheng lun zhu 往生論注)15, explained the meaning of bodhi-mind: “This unsurpassed bodhi-mind is precisely the mind that aspires to become a Buddha. To aspire to become a Buddha is to vow to liberate sentient beings. To vow to liberate sentient beings is to gather beings into the resolve to be born in the Buddha-land. Therefore, one who aspires to be reborn in that Land of Bliss must first arouse the unsurpassed bodhi-mind. If a person does not arouse the bodhi-mind, but merely hears of the pleasures of that land and, for the sake of pleasure, wishes to be born there, then such a person will not attain rebirth.”16

Within Pure Land cultivation, arousing the bodhicitta was given the foremost importance. At its core, the bodhi-mind was the mind that vowed to become a Buddha: not in pursuit of one’s own enjoyment, but in the spirit of aiding all beings to leave suffering and find joy, so that all might be born together in the Land of Bliss and Purity. Without this vow, one could not truly resonate with the Pure Land path. The emphasis lay in insisting that Pure Land practice could never be separated from the bodhi-mind. Yinguang wrote: “Once this mind is aroused, it is like a vessel receiving electricity or like medicine mixed with sulfur: its power is immense, and it acts swiftly. In eradicating karmic obstructions and in augmenting blessings and wisdom, its effect cannot be compared with ordinary merit or wholesome roots.”17 (Yinguang 2010b, p. 281). The bodhi-mind resonated with the ever-abiding true mind. The true mind contained immeasurable and boundless merit, capable of enabling all beings within the Dharma realm to attain accomplishment. Therefore, for practitioners of the Pure Land path, it is difficult to attain rebirth in the higher grades without embracing sentient beings with bodhicitta and guiding them back to the Pure Land (Yinguang 2010e, p. 70).

The bodhi-mind was the true mind that all beings already possessed. Yinguang stated, “This very single thought of bodhicitta is itself the ever-abiding Infinite Life.” The expression “ever-abiding Infinite Life” did not mean an eternal span of chronological time but rather emphasized the essence of the mind as transcending birth and death. Just as emptiness is not altered by the gathering and dispersing of clouds, the true mind is not diminished or increased by the arising of afflictions or the cycle of birth and death. Possessing the bodhi-mind, therefore, was equivalent to possessing the merit of Infinite Life itself. Yinguang further explained: “According to the nature of sentient beings, in its very substance it is nothing other than nirvāṇa without remainder. Yet due to delusion, it falsely manifests as the appearance of birth-and-death in saṃsāra.”18 (Yinguang 2010n, p. 1000). “Nirvāṇa without remainder” (wuyu niepan 无余涅槃) denoted the ultimate state of Buddhist cultivation, the completely pure condition in which afflictions are utterly extinguished and birth-and-death transcended. In this way, the mind-nature of all beings was already perfect in itself and was in no way different from the “nirvāna without remainder” realized by the Buddha.

Yinguang distinguished between the “true mind” and the “deluded mind.” “When speaking in terms of essence, one refers to the true mind. The deluded mind, though also a form of thought, is merely the mistaken discrimination arising on the basis of the true mind.”19 (Yinguang 2010d, p. 327). In this interpretation, the true mind represented the original face of the mind itself—pure and undefiled—whereas the deluded mind was nothing more than the agitation of that true mind, producing attachments and discriminations that had no independent existence (Hongfa 2017, p. 159). The two stood in a relation of “essence” and “function,” like the relationship between seawater and waves: although the forms differ, both share the same substance of the ocean, and ultimately both return to the nature of mind itself.

In the end, Yinguang brought the entire discussion of bodhi-mind back to a single point: “Within the originally enlightened mind, all dharmas are perfectly complete. It is the unsurpassed way of enlightenment attained by the Tathāgata, and also the ever-abiding true mind that sentient beings failed to recognize.”20 (Yinguang 2010s, p. 811). By stressing this bodhicitta, Yinguang pointed practitioners toward the practical path and dispelled the mistaken belief that Buddhahood was an unattainable ideal far removed from ordinary life.

Previous scholarship indicates that bodhicitta does not arise spontaneously but is cultivated through highly routinized practices, such as participating in communal recitation groups, performing merit dedication rituals, and implementing improvements in family ethics. Jones points out that the Pure Land Lotus Society, by setting specific behavioral guidelines, institutionalized the cultivation of bodhicitta (Jones 2019). According to Orsi’s relational perspective, bodhicitta does not merely originate from an individual’s inner awakening, but gradually takes shape through social interaction and group expectations (Orsi 2003). Yinguang’s letters consistently elucidated the bodhicitta as a moral responsibility to be genuinely practiced in daily human interactions, thereby transforming the enlightened mind from a mere concept into a practical function. In this way, the bodhi-mind moved from principle to function. Once this bodhicitta is generated, its influence will manifest from a latent state, and the practice of reciting the Buddha’s name will also gain a clear direction.

The Treatise on the Extensive Explanation of the Bodhi-Mind (Guangshi putixin lun 廣釋菩提心論) also provided a concrete account of both the origin and function of bodhi-mind. It stated: “If one wishes swiftly to realize the wisdom that knows all things, one must generally set the mind to dwell upon three objects, from which compassion arises, and from compassion the great bodhi-mind is produced.”21 Instead of cultivating over countless kalpas, the term “swift realization” stressed the direct achievement of the primary goal. The phrase “all-knowledge,” or sarvajñā in Sanskrit, referred to the Buddha’s wisdom, the ultimate understanding of the universe and human existence, and the total eradication of all sufferings. To “generally set the mind” was to create a basic perspective or a primary area of desire. The phrase “dwell upon three objects” referred to the three existential states of sentient beings: suffering, happiness, and the neutral condition of neither suffering nor joy. These three states served as the objects of contemplation from which compassion arose. “To give rise to compassion” meant that by observing the realities of these three conditions, one developed deep sympathy and compassion for all sentient beings. Compassion, in turn, was described as the “seed” of bodhi-mind. It is only from compassion for all sentient beings that the vast bodhicitta can naturally arise.

Thus, the function of bodhi-mind lay in using “abiding in the three contemplative objects” as a skillful means, generating compassion as a bridge, and finally producing the great bodhi-mind, through which one swiftly realized the wisdom of all-knowledge. In this way, compassion formed the indispensable foundation for the arising of the bodhi-mind, and the bodhi-mind itself provided the direct path toward enlightenment.

3.2. The Harmonious Integration of Principle and Phenomena in Faith, Vows, and Practice

One returned to the Pure Land through the path of “faith, vows, and practice (xin yuan xing 信願行) that encompass both principle and application.” In Pure Land Buddhism, “faith, vows, and practice” were regarded as the three essential guidelines. Yinguang explained them as follows: “Faith means to believe that this world is full of suffering, and that the Land of Ultimate Bliss is replete with joy. Faith means to recognize that I am an ordinary being burdened with karmic obstacles, one who certainly cannot rely on self-power to cut through delusion, realize truth, and free myself from birth and death. Faith means to trust that Amitābha Buddha, by virtue of his great vows, will respond with compassion: if any sentient being recites his name and aspires for rebirth in his land, then at the end of life the Buddha will surely extend his compassion and lead that person to be born in the Pure Land. Vows mean to aspire to depart quickly from this world of suffering and to be born speedily in that world of bliss. Practice means to recite sincerely and earnestly, always invoking the Name ‘Namo Amitābha Buddha’ without allowing even a moment of forgetfulness.”22 (Yinguang 2010q, p. 1).

When Yinguang spoke of faith in the words “I am an ordinary being burdened by karmic obstacles,” the “I” referred not to the enlightened self but to the deluded consciousness rooted in self-clinging (wozhi 我執). For such ordinary beings who had not yet realized the true nature of the mind, Pure Land faith began with a concrete belief in the actual existence of the Land of Bliss. To trust that this Sahā world was suffering and that the Pure Land was joy, to rely on the compassionate vow-power of Amitābha, and to be reborn in the Pure Land through his reception, which was the foundation. Yinguang stressed that “once reborn in the Pure Land, one’s afflictions and evil karma are thoroughly extinguished, and the merits and wisdom fully appear before the mind.”23 (Yinguang 2010h, p. 196). In this way, ordinary beings could return to their own true mind by being taken to the Pure Land. Since they had not yet attained realization on the level of principle, they relied on practice in the realm of phenomena, what he called “phenomenal cultivation” (shichi 事持) (Yinguang 2010i, p. 496). Therefore, practitioners secured the fundamental assurance of rebirth in the Western Pure Land by fully committing to the great vow-power of Amitābha Buddha and practicing exclusive recitation with unwavering faith and aspiration.

Read through lived-religion lenses, Yinguang’s program exemplifies how faith and vows become embodied practices, including habituated speech, posture, and diet, which make the sacred tangible in day-to-day existence. Orsi’s question “how do people use religious vocabularies to reconstruct self and world?” maps onto Pure Land’s triad as an ethics of attention and repetition (Orsi 2003). McGuire’s “embodied practices” clarify why nianfo can recalibrate affect and behavior without scholastic elaboration: the body learns salvation by doing it (McGuire 2008, pp. 13, 98–100).

Notably, Yinguang makes a clear judgment: ordinary practitioners are unlikely to cut through delusion and realize truth through their own efforts. They should trust in Amitābha’s great vows and seek release from this world of suffering. The distinctive feature of the Pure Land school, setting it apart from other Buddhist paths, lay precisely in this reliance on the Buddha’s power and on the dynamic of faith and vows directed toward rebirth in the Western Pure Land. Other paths demanded that practitioners rely upon their own effort to cut through delusion and escape birth and death. Pure Land practice emphasized that through the resonance of faith, vows, and the Buddha’s compassionate power, even ordinary beings could attain “rebirth with karmic burdens” in the Pure Land, thereby directly resolving the problem of samsāra.

Yinguang acknowledged that, in theory, if one had directly realized the true suchness of mind-nature, one could rely on self-power to put an end to birth and death; in such cases, the question of Pure Land rebirth need not arise. However, in reality, most practitioners—even those who, through Chan meditation, reached the level of “forgetting subject and object and severing attachment to the senses”—had not truly eradicated afflictions and karmic habits (Yinguang 2010u, p. 555). For such practitioners, if they clung only to the idea of a “Pure Land of the mind” (weixin jingtu 唯心淨土) without cultivating faith and vows, then even if they understood the principle, they still found it difficult to attain rebirth. When faith and aspiration are not emphasized, even if one attains awakening through the remembrance of the Buddha’s name, or even realizes ultimate reality and transcends transmigration, it is still considered self-power. This is fundamentally different from the Pure Land tenet of relying on the Buddha’s power (Chen 1999, p. 105). “Those who practice the remembrance of the Buddha’s name should truly invoke Amitābha of the Western Pure Land, and only then personally realize their own inherent Amitābha. One must never deny the objectively existing Western Pure Land” (Ji and Li 2019).

The superiority of the Pure Land path lay exactly here: even ordinary beings could establish karmic resonance with Amitābha Buddha by arousing true faith and vows. Through the Buddha’s compassionate vow-power, they could be reborn in the Pure Land while still carrying karmic burdens, and thereby put an end to birth and death. In comparison, the Chan school could indeed bring about awakening through self-power, but if delusive karma remained unbroken, practitioners were still bound to the cycle of rebirth. However, Pure Land Buddhism offered a more direct and reliable solution to the pressing question of how ordinary beings could escape samsāra without yet cutting through all afflictions. It was precisely this assurance—faith and vows as the bridge, the Buddha’s power as the support—that revealed the incomparable advantage of the Pure Land tradition.

3.3. The Path of Cultivation and Realization Through Buddha-Name Recitation

In the sphere of concrete practice, Yinguang emphasized that one could, through single-minded recitation of the Buddha’s name, personally realize samādhi within this very life. He taught, “When recitation reaches its ultimate point, awakening will naturally arise. Once awakening occurs, one must continue to recite with utmost seriousness.”24 (Yinguang 2010c, p. 702). For him, recitation was itself a path to awakening. But what exactly was to be recited? Ouyi Zhixu, in his Essential Explanation of the Amitābha Sūtra, made the matter explicit: “The Name of Amitābha is the inherent principle of original enlightenment within sentient beings. Chanting the Buddha’s Name is to unify the initial enlightenment with the original one. Since sentient beings and Buddhas are non-dual, therefore with each thought in correspondence one is a Buddha, and with every recitation in correspondence one is a Buddha.”25

Ouyi further explained that “Amitābha” in its original sense meant “Infinite.” Thus, “Amitābha Buddha” could be rendered as the “Buddha of Immeasurability.” Immeasurability denoted the ultimate, the perfect, and the unlimited, for if something were finite, it could not contain all things; only the infinite could encompass the totality of merits and virtues. Not only were the light and lifespan of Amitābha immeasurable, but his wisdom, vow-power, and spiritual capacity were also immeasurable. Yet, because sentient beings especially longed for brightness and longevity, the scriptures particularly highlighted Amitābha as “Immeasurable Light” and “Immeasurable Life.” Yinshun’s (印順, 1906–2005)26 philological studies confirmed this point, showing that the basic meaning of “Amitābha” was indeed “infinite”, hence “Amitābha Buddha” properly meant the “Buddha of Immeasurability” (Yinshun 2009a, p. 53).

Beyond “Immeasurable Buddha,” the name Amitābha also carried the connotations of “Immeasurable Light” and “Immeasurable Life.” As Yinguang explained, “Because the nature of mind is quiescent yet ever-illuminating, it is called light. When one thoroughly realizes the immeasurable essence of mind-nature, the light becomes immeasurable. All Buddhas fully realize this nature and illumine the ten directions, so they too may be called Immeasurable Light. Yet because their vows differ, each receives a distinct name according to causes and conditions. Amitābha, as the Bodhisattva Dharmākara, vowed that his light would constantly illumine the ten directions, and this vow has now been fulfilled.”27 Likewise, he observed: “It is called life because of the illuminating yet ever-quiescent nature of the mind. When one fully realizes the immeasurable essence of mind-nature, lifespan is immeasurable. The lifespan of the Dharma-body has neither beginning nor end.”28 Thus, “Immeasurable Life” signified the essence of mind as “illuminating yet quiescent.” Since the true mind was uncreated and indestructible, it could rightly be called “Immeasurable Life.” For this reason, the name “Amitābha” was often rendered as “Immeasurable Life.”

Why did the recitation of the Buddha’s name possess such transformative power, even to the point of awakening? Because, as Yinguang explained, the act of “name recitation” brought the practitioner’s initial enlightenment—the awakening that arose through cultivation—into correspondence with original enlightenment, the primordial awareness inherent in all beings. This was the principle of “non-duality between original and initial enlightenment” (benshi bu’er 本始不二). In a single thought, the mind revealed itself as “quiescent and illuminating in complete interpenetration” (jizhao yuanrong 寂照圓融), transcending all distinctions of time and space and recovering the innate Buddha-nature (Yinguang 2010j, p. 936). At the very moment of recitation, the mind that recited and the Buddha who was recited became non-dual: the one who recited was the Buddha, and the Buddha who was recited was none other than the mind itself. Thus, subject and object were fused, and the practitioner returned to the original true mind of enlightenment.

Among the many forms of Buddha recitation, Yinguang gave special prominence to “name recitation.” He gave detailed instructions for its practice: “When reciting aloud, one should voice all six characters. When reciting silently within the mind, one should use the four-character formula, for too many characters make silent recitation difficult. From morning until night, if one falls asleep, let it continue of its own accord; when waking up, immediately resume the recitation. One should regard the recitation of the Buddha’s Name as one’s own vital destiny.”29 (Yinguang 2010f, p. 183). Thus, he recommended both vocal recitation, which is clearly pronouncing the six-syllable formula “Namo Amitābha Buddha” (Namo Amituofo 南無阿彌陀佛), and silent recitation within the heart, focusing on the four-syllable formula “Amitābha Buddha” (Amituofo 阿彌陀佛). To maintain uninterrupted continuity of mindfulness, recitation should be a part of every moment of life. According to Yinguang, reciting the Buddha’s Name should be the focal point of every day, never forgotten and never put aside, much like the foundation of life. “When recitation is practiced with pure effort and utmost power, then the entire mind is Buddha, the entire Buddha is mind; mind and Buddha are non-dual, mind and Buddha are one.”30 (Yinguang 2010t, p. 165). In this way, Yinguang demonstrated that the method of name recitation provided direct access to the realm of quiescent illumination and a return to the self-nature of enlightenment.

Yet Yinguang pointed out: The practice of recollecting the Buddha’s name differs from “Mind-Only Pure Land; Amitābha as one’s own self-nature.” Bodhisattvas who have realized the Dharmakāya are able to comprehend the Mind-Only Pure Land, yet these great beings do not abandon phenomenal cultivation. They emphasize seeking rebirth in the Western Pure Land and upholding the Buddha’s name. Although all is endowed and created by the mind, for sentient beings and Buddhas to respond to each other, a perfect integration of principle and phenomena is required, and phenomenal cultivation must not be forsaken (Chen 1999, pp. 97–98). This position aligns with the views of Lianchi and Chewu, asserting that the so-called “non-abandonment of phenomena” and “return to the mind-nature” are not in opposition but rather mutually supportive (Jones 2019, p. 52).

Jones recasts Pure Land as a “tradition of practice.” Neither self-power nor other-power can be dispensed with: other-power can assist in rebirth in the Pure Land, opens the door to rebirth, while ethical self-cultivation and keeping precepts through self-power can furnish the good roots that raise one’s grade of rebirth. Elevating one’s lotus grade can lead to rapid Buddhahood, and becoming a Buddha enables the widespread liberation of sentient beings, allowing them to jointly ascend to Sukhāvatī (Jones 2019, pp. 93, 97). From this angle, the everyday ethics Yinguang stresses—filial care, truthfulness, vegetarianism, releasing life—are not mere moralism; they provide the karmic conditions that make sympathetic resonance work (Shen 2023).

To summarize the above: Nurture wholesome roots through ethics and precepts. Remove selfish desires to clear obstacles. Make the bodhi vow so that faith has a place to rest and can more easily respond to the Buddha. Hold and recite the Buddha’s name to receive the Buddha’s aid and attain rebirth in the Pure Land even while still carrying karma. The Pure Land teaching articulated in the guideline took supramundane liberation as its principal orientation. Through the sequence of “bodhi-mind, to faith and vows, to name recitation”, Yinguang set out a path that remained embedded in the world yet aimed at transcendence, a discipline that was “within the human condition yet led beyond it” (ji shijian er chushijian 即世間而出世間). Each component was given a specific role, which was the Pure Land path’s unique strength. The basic vow-power that established the practitioner’s orientation toward universal liberation was the bodhi-mind. Lofty goals were grounded in a lived discipline through faith and vows, which provided the tangible pathway of commitment. Name recitation served as an accessible method that translated Buddhist doctrine into daily discipline. In this way, the Pure Land program transformed profound metaphysical truths into workable methods of spiritual cultivation, so that one could embody the ultimate truth of “this very mind is Buddha” while also meeting the existential weakness of ordinary beings whose faith and vows were often weak or unstable.

According to Yinguang, this integration was a system that “adjusted to the capacities of sentient beings below and accorded with the Buddha-Dharma above.” It provided a concrete route to liberation from birth and death for the individual. It conveyed a caring determination to lead all living things to salvation for the larger community. In combining the dual aims of self-cultivation and benefiting others, the guideline displayed the heart of Mahāyāna Buddhism in its most accessible and effective form.

4. Conclusions

In the context of Republican-era social disruption and mass suffering, Yinguang emerged not simply as an eminent monk but as a religious figure whose writings circulated widely and addressed ethical anxieties among lay Buddhists. His importance lies less in personal charisma than in the coherence of the program he articulated, which integrated Confucian moral discipline with Pure Land soteriology. This makes his thought particularly suitable for philosophical analysis.

Yinguang’s Eightfold Guideline of Practice constructed an integrated path of mind-cultivation and realization. The internal structure of the Eightfold Guideline may be outlined as follows. “Fulfilling one’s duties and preserving sincerity,” explained the process of getting rid of selfish desire, greed, anger, and ignorance, as well as regaining the innate luminous virtue. The discipline of precepts was cited as the cornerstone of “refraining from all evils and cultivating all virtues,” which connected the practice of faith, vows, and recitation with mental purification. Confronting birth and death and arousing the bodhi-mind” underscored the bodhi-mind as a mind of both self-benefit and altruism, rooted in great compassion and expressive of the original endowment of the true mind. “Establishing deep faith and vows and reciting the Buddha’s name” joined faith in one’s own inherent Buddha-nature with trust in Amitābha’s vast vow-power.

Beginning with the perfection of moral character and culminating in liberation from birth and death, it took worldly ethical practice as its foundation and the aspiration for rebirth through Buddha recitation as its final destination. In this way, it created a path of practice that harmonized “ascending quest for ultimate enlightenment and the descending outreach for pragmatic application in daily life,” and integrated both worldly and supramundane concerns. It was, in short, a way of “reaching Buddhahood through the human path.”

This system stressed the indispensability of awakening to the mind-nature, and at the same time, placed equal weight on the discipline of reciting the Buddha’s name. By framing practice in terms of the “integration of principle and phenomena,” Yinguang criticized partial views that clung to abstract principle while neglecting practical application. He argued instead that “only through cultivating virtue in practice does the inherent virtue of one’s nature become manifest.” In this way, the Eightfold Guideline provided guidance that spoke not only to Buddhist doctrine but also to the broader concern of spiritual cultivation in modern life. To aspire to birth in the Western Pure Land and to realize the samādhi of name recitation were, for Yinguang, inseparable goals. The name of Amitābha, meaning “Immeasurable Light” and “Immeasurable Life,” signified both the illuminating and quiescent qualities of the mind and the vow of Dharmākara Bodhisattva to guide beings to the Land of Bliss.

Ethically, the emphasis on sincerity, duty, and virtue cultivation furnishes practicable guidance for civic, professional, and familial life; soteriologically, the faith-vow-practice triad makes liberation attainable for ordinary practitioners through the disciplined consolidation of attention in name recitation. In Republican China, which was an age of upheaval with people suffering the modern transformation, the people needed to return to Confucian ethics and Buddhist practice to niaofo to achieve rebirth in the Pure Land. Yinguang’s use of Buddhist ideas alongside familiar Confucian and local terms, his focus on nianfo, and his tolerance of popular rites helped a broad lay movement take shape (Kiely 2016). As a religious leader, Yinguang was noted for combining spiritual depth with a moral-regulatory discipline, a combination that defined his persona and teaching.

As Yinguang wrote, “Reciting the Buddha’s name can eliminate karmic obstructions, and through sincere dedication one can transform the ordinary mind” (Yinguang 2010v, preface). His presentation of the Eightfold Guideline, therefore, joined Buddhist doctrine with lived practice in a manner that could continue to speak across contexts: to traditional concerns about liberation from saṃsāra and to modern concerns about well-being.